6 ms·

The problem is that pay isn't uniform across skilled labor demand, and the purpose of the H1B program is to fulfill demand in the economy. If you set a quota a

The problem is that pay isn't uniform across skilled labor demand, and the purpose of the H1B program is to fulfill demand in the economy. If you set a quota and give to the highest bidder, you're going to see private sector executives and financial roles being filled in cities with high costs of living and competitive wages. Salary is a function not only of demand but also location and industry. This will discriminate against rural and middle America by depriving them of the skilled labor that they need to survive.

k_sh 8y ago
Perhaps this could be offset by using something like the GS Locality Pay[0] index? [0]: https://www.federalpay.org/gs/locality https://www.federalpay.org/gs/locality
pmalynin 8y ago
The supply / demand in the economy is specifically determined by the salary. If the demand grows high enough so that salaries go up, then you can obviously compete with other highly paid professionals. There is no reason Tata and Infosys should be hiring 70k contractors to do shitty jobs.
- bduerst 8y ago
  >The supply / demand in the economy is specifically determined by the salary. Salary is a function of location, industry, and demand. Discriminating against American businesses that need skilled labor and are not in the most competitive industries or locations is not the purpose of the H1B program. >There is no reason Tata and Infosys should be hiring 70k contractors to do shitty jobs. This is a different problem, which is being solved as USCIS is cracking down on consultants who are registered in one region but work in another.
  - pmalynin 8y ago
    Arguably, the salary (and price in general) is measure of marginal utility. Hence if one job pays 140, 000 over 70, 000 we can argue that the one that pays more provides more marginal utility to society. That is, the United States as a whole gains more value from that job.
    - bduerst 8y ago
      Or you could argue that the U.S. gains more from allowing 20 lower-paid civil engineers than allowing 1 private sector executive buy their H1B. The point is that switching to an auction with the H1B causes more problems without really solving any, at least within the scope of the program's purpose.
      - pmalynin 8y ago
        I don't know. If you're paying 20x what a civil engineer gets then you might as well go with E5 Investor Visas. Its true that auctions have issues, but we could go with (for example) second price (aka Vickrey) auctions for salaries.
        bduerst 8y ago
        How you would think the E5 is a substitute for an H1B is beyond me. A business isn't going to pay their executive to found and work at an entirely different business, especially if it jeopardizes the business's ability to sponsor future visas with USCIS.
        pmalynin 8y ago
        EB-5 has nothing to do with founding and working at a different business. USCIS allows applicants to invest into EB-5 Regional Centers, which are essentially funds that would not require you to work there or start any new business. If an investment is made into a TEA, the capital requirements drop to $500, 000. Its effectively a for sale green card. If you are a sufficiently important executive, $500, 000 is chump change to ensure you can stay in the United States indefinitely. I'm not sure why you are turning to hostilities. Please review the legislation.
        bduerst 8y ago
        The business then needs to cover the executive salary on top of EB investments into other businesses - that is not a substitute for H1B. This fact along with addressing the tone makes it seem like you're fishing for a red herring.
johnvanommen 8y ago
You could index it with cost of living. So an H1B in a California company would expect to see a higher salary than one in Kansas.
- EduardoBautista 8y ago
  That still doesn't consider pay differences between two completely different jobs.
  - kd0amg 8y ago
    Then it would be working as intended. Jobs where labor isn't so scarce as to push prevailing wages up really high don't need extra labor brought into the market. The remaining concern is distorted markets like foreign language teachers (brought up elsewhere in the thread), where it may be politically infeasible to raise compensation to match the value workers create.
    - bduerst 8y ago
      The purpose of the H1B program is to fulfill skilled labor demand where local labor is unable to fill it. The purpose is not to give visas to the wealthiest bidder in the wealthiest locations and industries. Prevailing wage requirement already solves the problem of wage velocity, so this is just creating more issues without solving any.
      - int_19h 8y ago
        "Unable to fill" is itself a function of the salary. If a local business is unable to fill it at what they're willing to pay, how about paying more to attract said labor from other parts of the country? H1B and similar programs should be used to fill in the holes that are on the national level - i.e. where there's no labor force anywhere else in the country that could be enticed to move.
        bduerst 8y ago
ivl 8y ago
> This will deprive rural and middle America on the skilled labor that they need to survive. That's kind of already happened. Since the recession almost all new jobs created were in cities and metro areas, and mostly to educated workers. Rural and middle America have this problem all on their own: skilled labor does not want to live in rural and middle America. Especially young skilled workers. There's even the concept of rural brain drain, as the top 5 % are sure to leave right after they're done high school.
- zjaffee 8y ago
  > skilled labor does not want to live in rural and middle America. I'm unsure about this, and think it's kind of a chicken and the egg problem. I know tons of people who are from the midwest that would prefer to be there, but tend to flock to the coast simply because it's hard to find as rigorous of a professional environment back home.
  - ska 8y ago
    s/want/choose/ in the original, I think.
  - ivl 8y ago
    It's not a chicken and egg problem. Cities are much more efficient for labor and companies. You have a larger pool of talent, a larger pool of freshly educated replacements for those who retire or leave, and often more services available for said talent. Edit: Now that I'm thinking about it a little more I can maybe sympathize a little bit. I prefer to live in rural areas in some ways due to my hobbies, but I'm never going to as the economics of a tech company, or even a company that needs skilled, educated workers makes no sense in rural areas. So there's something to the want vs. choice angle, but what one fantasizes about has little to do with economic realities. Plenty of people want high paying low skilled manufacturing jobs to be a thing again, that doesn't mean it's realistically going to happen.
    - iguy 8y ago
      Another factor is the 2-body problem. If most of the workers are looking for a city with enough jobs for two different careers, then that's where employers will need to be to hire them.
stale2002 8y ago
Your arguement is true, but it is also, IMO, the intended behavior. Having higher paid workers push out the lower paid ones, is kinda the whole point. I want more skilled labor to move to where they are in demand.
thrmsforbfast 8y ago
> If you set a quota and give to the highest bidder, you're going to see private sector executives, lawyers, and financial roles being filled in cities with high costs of living and competitive wages. Yes, that's the point. Skilled labor immigration is for skilled labor. It should not by a subsidy to companies that cannot afford to pay prevailing wages and/or are unwilling to invest in their workforce. > This will deprive rural and middle America of the skilled labor that they need to survive. Middle America will be fine; Chicago, KC, Pittsburgh, etc. can and do compete with the coasts for skilled labor! That said, I could get behind a rule that adjusts for cost of living so that e.g. 100k in Pittsburgh or KC == 200k in SF. That seems fair. As for rural America, there's a reason these areas can't attract companies or talent.
- lmkg 8y ago
  > As for rural America, there's a reason these areas > can't attract companies or talent. Look, I don't want to live in a remote shit-hole either, but... The fact that the concerns of rural communities are summarily dismissed when making policy was one of the big contributing factors to the election victories of both Brexit and Trump. (Possibly more due to resentment rather than as a rational response, but that's irrelevant.) Urban vs Rural is becoming one of the more significant divisions in this country, as wealth consolidation favors urban. And, more fundamentally, there are people who live there. The actions of a democratic government are supposed to be for the benefit of its people. That includes the people who live in rural communities. Policy that lets the economic advantage of urban areas snowball more is something that should be given more thought than "it wouldn't matter anyways, those places suck." Maybe there isn't a solution, or maybe this policy in particular isn't the best place to address it, but it deserves at least a modicum of thought rather than a dismissal that is, frankly, disdainful. Those places do suck, but we should treat that as a problem to be addressed rather than avoided. [edit]: Let me clarify: I am not saying the urban-rural divide is caused specifically by the lack of high-skill immigrant labor. I am saying the urban-rural divide is exacerbated generally by dismissing the concerns of rural communities when making policy. I don't think this policy suggestion in particular is the highest-value one, but I also think that no individual snowflake is responsible for the avalanche.
protomyth 8y ago
> This will discriminate against rural and middle America by depriving them of the skilled labor that they need to survive. What jobs are rural American companies hiring H1Bs?
notyourday 8y ago
> This will discriminate against rural and middle America by depriving them of the skilled labor that they need to survive. Rural and middle America needs to get off its collective ass. I have seriously considered moving to one of those places -- alas, while I can get a house cheap and have what I need to survive inexpensively, I cannot get high speed internet even if I pay $1,000.00 per month.
- blihp 8y ago
  That's not the fault of most of those communities. Many of them have tried to set up their own municipal wifi/ISPs and many (most?) have been stopped cold by legislation and back room deals at the local and state levels by the telco and cable companies. Just read some of the stories about what Google, one of the richest companies on Earth, ran into when attempting to bring high-speed Internet to various cities.
  - notyourday 8y ago
    I don't care. I have money. I want a service. They can't provide it. This means they do not get to complain that my six figure buying power chooses a city.
int_19h 8y ago
Does rural and middle America rely on H1B to fill its labor pool today?
burfog 8y ago
I don't see rural and middle America crying out for more immigrants of any type. They won't be complaining, and it isn't proper to complain on their behalf due to whatever you judge to be best for them. That leaves nobody to complain. If you insist on deciding what is best for rural and middle America, I sure hope you don't object when they return the favor, deciding on your behalf that cities would be best off without any immigration.

k_sh 8y ago

Perhaps this could be offset by using something like the GS Locality Pay[0] index? [0]: https://www.federalpay.org/gs/locality https://www.federalpay.org/gs/locality

pmalynin 8y ago

The supply / demand in the economy is specifically determined by the salary. If the demand grows high enough so that salaries go up, then you can obviously compete with other highly paid professionals. There is no reason Tata and Infosys should be hiring 70k contractors to do shitty jobs.

bduerst 8y ago
>The supply / demand in the economy is specifically determined by the salary. Salary is a function of location, industry, and demand. Discriminating against American businesses that need skilled labor and are not in the most competitive industries or locations is not the purpose of the H1B program. >There is no reason Tata and Infosys should be hiring 70k contractors to do shitty jobs. This is a different problem, which is being solved as USCIS is cracking down on consultants who are registered in one region but work in another.
- pmalynin 8y ago
  Arguably, the salary (and price in general) is measure of marginal utility. Hence if one job pays 140, 000 over 70, 000 we can argue that the one that pays more provides more marginal utility to society. That is, the United States as a whole gains more value from that job.
  - bduerst 8y ago
    Or you could argue that the U.S. gains more from allowing 20 lower-paid civil engineers than allowing 1 private sector executive buy their H1B. The point is that switching to an auction with the H1B causes more problems without really solving any, at least within the scope of the program's purpose.
    - pmalynin 8y ago
      I don't know. If you're paying 20x what a civil engineer gets then you might as well go with E5 Investor Visas. Its true that auctions have issues, but we could go with (for example) second price (aka Vickrey) auctions for salaries.
      - bduerst 8y ago
        How you would think the E5 is a substitute for an H1B is beyond me. A business isn't going to pay their executive to found and work at an entirely different business, especially if it jeopardizes the business's ability to sponsor future visas with USCIS.
        pmalynin 8y ago
        EB-5 has nothing to do with founding and working at a different business. USCIS allows applicants to invest into EB-5 Regional Centers, which are essentially funds that would not require you to work there or start any new business. If an investment is made into a TEA, the capital requirements drop to $500, 000. Its effectively a for sale green card. If you are a sufficiently important executive, $500, 000 is chump change to ensure you can stay in the United States indefinitely. I'm not sure why you are turning to hostilities. Please review the legislation.
        bduerst 8y ago
        The business then needs to cover the executive salary on top of EB investments into other businesses - that is not a substitute for H1B. This fact along with addressing the tone makes it seem like you're fishing for a red herring.

johnvanommen 8y ago

You could index it with cost of living. So an H1B in a California company would expect to see a higher salary than one in Kansas.

EduardoBautista 8y ago
That still doesn't consider pay differences between two completely different jobs.
- kd0amg 8y ago
  Then it would be working as intended. Jobs where labor isn't so scarce as to push prevailing wages up really high don't need extra labor brought into the market. The remaining concern is distorted markets like foreign language teachers (brought up elsewhere in the thread), where it may be politically infeasible to raise compensation to match the value workers create.
  - bduerst 8y ago
    The purpose of the H1B program is to fulfill skilled labor demand where local labor is unable to fill it. The purpose is not to give visas to the wealthiest bidder in the wealthiest locations and industries. Prevailing wage requirement already solves the problem of wage velocity, so this is just creating more issues without solving any.
    - int_19h 8y ago
      "Unable to fill" is itself a function of the salary. If a local business is unable to fill it at what they're willing to pay, how about paying more to attract said labor from other parts of the country? H1B and similar programs should be used to fill in the holes that are on the national level - i.e. where there's no labor force anywhere else in the country that could be enticed to move.
      - bduerst 8y ago

ivl 8y ago

> This will deprive rural and middle America on the skilled labor that they need to survive. That's kind of already happened. Since the recession almost all new jobs created were in cities and metro areas, and mostly to educated workers. Rural and middle America have this problem all on their own: skilled labor does not want to live in rural and middle America. Especially young skilled workers. There's even the concept of rural brain drain, as the top 5 % are sure to leave right after they're done high school.

zjaffee 8y ago
> skilled labor does not want to live in rural and middle America. I'm unsure about this, and think it's kind of a chicken and the egg problem. I know tons of people who are from the midwest that would prefer to be there, but tend to flock to the coast simply because it's hard to find as rigorous of a professional environment back home.
- ska 8y ago
  s/want/choose/ in the original, I think.
- ivl 8y ago
  It's not a chicken and egg problem. Cities are much more efficient for labor and companies. You have a larger pool of talent, a larger pool of freshly educated replacements for those who retire or leave, and often more services available for said talent. Edit: Now that I'm thinking about it a little more I can maybe sympathize a little bit. I prefer to live in rural areas in some ways due to my hobbies, but I'm never going to as the economics of a tech company, or even a company that needs skilled, educated workers makes no sense in rural areas. So there's something to the want vs. choice angle, but what one fantasizes about has little to do with economic realities. Plenty of people want high paying low skilled manufacturing jobs to be a thing again, that doesn't mean it's realistically going to happen.
  - iguy 8y ago
    Another factor is the 2-body problem. If most of the workers are looking for a city with enough jobs for two different careers, then that's where employers will need to be to hire them.

stale2002 8y ago

Your arguement is true, but it is also, IMO, the intended behavior. Having higher paid workers push out the lower paid ones, is kinda the whole point. I want more skilled labor to move to where they are in demand.

thrmsforbfast 8y ago

> If you set a quota and give to the highest bidder, you're going to see private sector executives, lawyers, and financial roles being filled in cities with high costs of living and competitive wages. Yes, that's the point. Skilled labor immigration is for skilled labor. It should not by a subsidy to companies that cannot afford to pay prevailing wages and/or are unwilling to invest in their workforce. > This will deprive rural and middle America of the skilled labor that they need to survive. Middle America will be fine; Chicago, KC, Pittsburgh, etc. can and do compete with the coasts for skilled labor! That said, I could get behind a rule that adjusts for cost of living so that e.g. 100k in Pittsburgh or KC == 200k in SF. That seems fair. As for rural America, there's a reason these areas can't attract companies or talent.

lmkg 8y ago
> As for rural America, there's a reason these areas > can't attract companies or talent. Look, I don't want to live in a remote shit-hole either, but... The fact that the concerns of rural communities are summarily dismissed when making policy was one of the big contributing factors to the election victories of both Brexit and Trump. (Possibly more due to resentment rather than as a rational response, but that's irrelevant.) Urban vs Rural is becoming one of the more significant divisions in this country, as wealth consolidation favors urban. And, more fundamentally, there are people who live there. The actions of a democratic government are supposed to be for the benefit of its people. That includes the people who live in rural communities. Policy that lets the economic advantage of urban areas snowball more is something that should be given more thought than "it wouldn't matter anyways, those places suck." Maybe there isn't a solution, or maybe this policy in particular isn't the best place to address it, but it deserves at least a modicum of thought rather than a dismissal that is, frankly, disdainful. Those places do suck, but we should treat that as a problem to be addressed rather than avoided. [edit]: Let me clarify: I am not saying the urban-rural divide is caused specifically by the lack of high-skill immigrant labor. I am saying the urban-rural divide is exacerbated generally by dismissing the concerns of rural communities when making policy. I don't think this policy suggestion in particular is the highest-value one, but I also think that no individual snowflake is responsible for the avalanche.

protomyth 8y ago

> This will discriminate against rural and middle America by depriving them of the skilled labor that they need to survive. What jobs are rural American companies hiring H1Bs?

notyourday 8y ago

> This will discriminate against rural and middle America by depriving them of the skilled labor that they need to survive. Rural and middle America needs to get off its collective ass. I have seriously considered moving to one of those places -- alas, while I can get a house cheap and have what I need to survive inexpensively, I cannot get high speed internet even if I pay $1,000.00 per month.

blihp 8y ago
That's not the fault of most of those communities. Many of them have tried to set up their own municipal wifi/ISPs and many (most?) have been stopped cold by legislation and back room deals at the local and state levels by the telco and cable companies. Just read some of the stories about what Google, one of the richest companies on Earth, ran into when attempting to bring high-speed Internet to various cities.
- notyourday 8y ago
  I don't care. I have money. I want a service. They can't provide it. This means they do not get to complain that my six figure buying power chooses a city.

int_19h 8y ago

Does rural and middle America rely on H1B to fill its labor pool today?

burfog 8y ago

I don't see rural and middle America crying out for more immigrants of any type. They won't be complaining, and it isn't proper to complain on their behalf due to whatever you judge to be best for them. That leaves nobody to complain. If you insist on deciding what is best for rural and middle America, I sure hope you don't object when they return the favor, deciding on your behalf that cities would be best off without any immigration.